Goodman Games

Jeffrey wrote:

Harley Stroh wrote: DCC spellcasters can be incredibly powerful, pulling off miracles, but it can come at a terrible cost. There is only so long that mortals can dabble in the dark arts without being changed. Stare into the abyss and the abyss will look back.

//H

THIS is what magic should be! Am really looking forward to reading the rules.

Welcome, Jeffrey!

Joseph did a great job ensuring that powerful casters fear for their souls. It is one of my favorite aspects of the system.

//H

goodmangames wrote:Well, based on my kill ratios at playtest sessions, I think power inflation is the least of your worries. I would focus more on getting ANY of your characters to 2nd level. Hell, even getting to 1st level would be an accomplishment. Last year I ran 4 or 5 playtest games at GaryCon, and in the very first session I wiped out the ENTIRE party of 0-level characters. Not like 3 or 4 of them, but something like 18 PCs. "Playtest feedback for self: ramp down the death rate!"

It was brutal. And I seriously had to consider if I am a maso-gamer because I had a blast.

I'm liking what I'm hearing here.

I want to put 10 more cents in... I'd like an option to weaken magic. Save or Lose is not what the game is supposed to be about.

I'd like an option for weaker versions of the killer spells. Namely the ones that make the wizards rule and the fighters drool.

And yes... nifty other magic items and less emphasis on serrated Kukri's of Eye Gouging would be a plus. I truly resent that magic is integrated into the leveling of your characters in 4e.

What is so wrong with wanting to bring back a +1 sword which glows?

UHF wrote:I'd like an option to weaken magic. Save or Lose is not what the game is supposed to be about.

What is so wrong with wanting to bring back a +1 sword which glows?

An interesting thought. The traditional method of limiting magic power, of course, is simply limiting the quantity of spells. Limiting the quality is a neat approach.

Unfortunately we won't know the "official" take on this until we get to see the exact spell-effect tables, but I suspect this is something that could be done unofficially here via discussion if it's not included in the actual rules.

UHF wrote:I'm liking what I'm hearing here.

I want to put 10 more cents in... I'd like an option to weaken magic. Save or Lose is not what the game is supposed to be about.

Actually, I quite like save or dies when used sparingly. High level magic should be feared. It's easy enough to disallow those spells if one doesn't like them.

You guys are talking as very experienced players. But you have to remember that this has to appeal to a broader base than the guys who already know how to do all this.

Its not like you're on hand to teach people how to play.

My personal experiences with AD&D while growing up were not that fun. My friends and I just picked up the book and ran with it. It wasn't like there was a good description of how to run the game. I was recently reading the Alexandrian cut down on 4e, and he mentions that the purpose of the random encounter table was to prevent the wizard from using his spells in a 15 minute work day.

I was like, "Wow.. 30 years later and I finally learn this." Do you think I should tell this little secret to all the other AD&D DMs who still don't the secret? I assume you know of course. I have a friend who's an extremely good DM (I converted him to C&C), and I know he doesn't know this. He tosses random encounters out just to add excitement.

Also, I'm often surprised to hear about house rules. We never had any. It hadn't occurred to any of us that there was anything wrong with the game. (Just another weekly hissy fit while playing D&D is all.)

UHF wrote: Its not like you're on hand to teach people how to play.

Excellent point.

So, why don't we?

Tossing out a few ideas.

I've been playing these kind of games since 1976, so I've read a lot of rulebooks in my time. Every time I had a new player to be introduced into one of my D&D games, I would hand him/her the DM's guide and have them read the "example of play" mini-adventure that was in there. You know the one; it reads like an actual script. GM says this, John-player responds, Mary-player asks question, etc.

I've found that it provides not only an example of the rules, but an example of the flavor of how these RPG's are conducted. You can almost see the light bulb go on, at times, above the heads of new players. They relax as they understand more of what will be expected of them.

Everyone will have their own style in the game, to be sure, and no two will be exactly alike, but to have some examples of interesting, exciting, even comical situations and the responses by the GM might do well to prime the pump and excite some imaginations. While there is no one right way to run a game, there are unfortunately a few wrong ways; and a game where no one is having fun is an example of a wrong way.

You're right. We can't be there to teach all the players how to play or GM.

But we can help them by providing some examples of how to overcome some common roadblocks; if not in the printed rulebook, then perhaps here in the discussion boards?

-Jeff

Jim Skach wrote:It was brutal. And I seriously had to consider if I am a maso-gamer because I had a blast.

Jim, that was a fun game! Will you be back at GaryCon this year?

goodmangames wrote:

Jim Skach wrote:It was brutal. And I seriously had to consider if I am a maso-gamer because I had a blast.

Jim, that was a fun game! Will you be back at GaryCon this year?

With my kids along, good sir.

I hope we can game again and, barring that, grab a bite and a drink.